You have access to this content through your organization’s enterprise subscription to the Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN). Would you like to go there now? Your choice will be remembered until you close your browser.

No Firm Date For UAV Rules As FAA, Industry Launch Safety Campaign

Concerned that tens of thousands Americans will receive small quadcopters as gifts this holiday season, the FAA and industry have teamed to produce educational materials available on a website and in social media channels in an attempt to prevent potential accidents in the air and on the ground.

The action comes as industry awaits the FAA’s first attempt to formally regulate the burgeoning sector with new rules for commercial applications of small unmanned air systems (UAS), defined as weighing less than 55 lb.

Agency officials have said the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be issued before year’s end, but FAA Administrator Michael Huerta, addressing reporters during the “Know Before You Fly” campaign on Dec. 22, would not commit to a date.

“We’re working very closely with our administration colleagues and are very focused on getting it out as quickly as we can,” Huerta says. “It’s a very complicated rule and we want to get it right.”

The safety campaign, launched in conjunction with the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, Academy of Model Aeronautics and the Small UAV Coalition, instructs operators to follow the rules set for recreational model aircraft use—stay below 400 ft. above the ground, keep the aircraft in sight and away from people and stadiums, and avoid flying near manned aircraft or within 5 mi. of an airport, unless approved to do so by the FAA or the airport. The materials also advise operators to inspect the vehicles before flight and to fly only for fun—not for payment or commercial services. The group says it will work with UAV manufacturers in the coming weeks to put the information in the packaging for the devices.

Although the FAA is promoting “voluntary compliance” with the rules through education, Huerta warns that careless or reckless operations that endanger people or other aircraft can lead to fines. He says the “overwhelming” majority of users are operating safely, but that the agency also knows there are “rogue actors” and others who are not familiar with the rules. Enforcement actions can include warning notices, letters of correction and civil penalties, he adds.

Huerta denies the agency has been “soft” on its approval and enforcement policies for a small set of commercial operators flying UAS, an allegation spelled out in a Dec. 22 Washington Post article.

“As with any new technology, you’re going to have different points of view with different opinions and we welcome that because that’s how we get to ensuring that we can develop the best regulations and the best mitigations to put in place,” he says. “I’m very confident we have a very open process; we have a transparent and a thoughtful process that is very focused on how we stage integration into the [national airspace system] but to do it in a safe manner.”

The article states that FAA had ignored some safety inspectors’ concerns when approving applications from commercial operators to fly the vehicles under the so-called Section 333 of the 2012 FAA reauthorization legislation. That legislation allows for exemptions to the ban on commercial UAV operations where the risk to people or property is low.

FAA earlier this month granted five exemptions for commerical UAS operations to four companies, raising the total number of granted exemptions to a dozen. The initial round of exemptions focused on companies performing videography. The latest exemptions are for aerial surveying, construction site monitoring and oil rig flare stack inspections.

Discuss this Article 9

As usual, the FAA is a day late and a dollar short. This Christmas will see these devices sold in significant quantities. Yet, the FAA is only contemplating information on the packaging. Horses and barns? Further, the FAA has a very poor track record of imposing sanctions on those who do not hold FAA airman certificates or other FAA operating certificates. And, if you're not in the aviation game you may not even know there is an airport within 5 miles. Oh, is that statute or nautical miles? Is the measurement to the nearest point on the airport or the airport reference point? Is the heliport at the local hospital an airport for this purpose? Lots of luck FAA.

Radio controlled model airplanes have been flown for over 50 years with no problems. The thing was not everyone could fly one; it took some skill and these models were quite expensive to crash if you didn't know what you were doing. Now we have these so called "Drones" that have popped up and thanks to modern computer technology can be flown by almost anyone. The rules being promulgated are very similar to those in existence for years, but now we have people flying these things that have problems following the rules of the road with a car. I do hope that what ever rules are made final don't impact those of us that were following the rules for UAV flight for decades.

All good points. The missing link for me is an engineering analysis, or better yet, test results, showing what happens when the certain aircraft surfaces (windscreens, wing or empennage leading edges, radome) come into contact with a range of small lightweight quadcopters, the most populous of these new vehicles. With all the expertise in the field, has no one really taken a look at this and compared the results to the broad area of knowledge that is bird strike science? This work to me would better quantify the threat (maybe vehicles below 2lb pose absolutely no threat to anyone or anything) and avoid taking precious FAA resources from more significant threats

I believe the main threat is to windscreen and jet engine intake causing an engine stall or flame out. Helicopter blades could also be effected but usually are made to survive small branches and wires.

It has been proposed that NASA conduct tests to see what damage, if any, might occur with these vehicles. They have steadfastly refused as has the FAA. As a result, there is no firm basis upon which to make a rational rule. Further, the notion that all activities should be conducted at under 400ft is nonsense. There is actually some legal basis for the claim that below the "minimum navigable altitude", the airspace belongs to the property owner. Thus, the FAA would have no legal right to "allow" or "disallow" operations in that airspace any more than they could allow or disallow someone to go fishing in your pond. The FAA has in the past been presented with a set of reasonable, rational, defensible rules that everyone could follow. However, they have not chosen to do so and, by all accounts, they are not likely to. Sad, really, since having a set of draconian rules will do nothing more than encourage a tidal wave of "rogue" operations to occur - precisely the opposite of what should happen.

The airspace issues claimed make perfect sense. Drones should not fly at altitude that can conflict with legal air traffic and normal air traffic must operate at a minimum altitude except when in a landing approach. The five mile limit from airports should also ensure these altitudes are safe.

That seems ludicrous. One of the most challenging requirements for developing a large turbofan engine (like GE's new engine for the 777X) is building a fan blade that can withstand the required bird impact tests. Why is this so different that it can't be analyzed. It's essentially a new breed of mechanical "bird". Do the tests - figure out what the UAS should or should not be made of, set weight limits, preach safe flight, but don't hold your breath waiting for the inevitable to occur - a collision - because you were too stubborn to do the analysis.

Inside the Knowledge Center

Get key insights from Aviation Week Network’s annual Workforce Study about the state of the A&D industry’s workforce. Learn about the industry’s ability to meet ever-changing customer requirements through the innovation, ingenuity and capability of its people....More

In the simplest terms, airlines need to maximize the value of their aircraft by increasing profits from time in the air while decreasing the costs and time on the ground. Efficient aircraft ground operations are fundamental to meeting customer service expectations...More

In the simplest terms, airlines need to maximize the value of their aircraft by increasing profits from time in the air while decreasing the costs and time on the ground. Efficient aircraft ground operations are fundamental to meeting customer service expectations...More